meetings. you would only missed two meetings per year and otherwise would be automatically of the committee. it is a dedicated group of people. supervisor olague: i am not saying that people of a certain community cannot adequately represent the impacts, but i believe that there are plenty of people who are off of a diverse background that have the skills and commitment to fulfill the requirement. the skills and requirements for cup -- that the role requires. supervisor avalos: i have known greg and have worked for him -- with him for a number of years.

i think he would make a great member of the committee. i also feel that it is important that we look at what the tradition has been in terms of having district seat on the cac. to me, that is an important consideration. this committee has often deferred to the supervisor. there was a request for the supervisor to continue with the appointment of the community member. that is just one of the many decisions that we make here as a body. but we can have a roll call that goes. commissioner cohne: n.

commissioner cohen: thank you. i am not sure this is how you intended, but i feel like your comments are almost justification as to why we should not support him, and i would disagree respectfully with what you pointed out. i believe if we have several different appointments coming up, there will be another opportunity for peter tannen. what i am saying is we have an opportunity to make a decision today. why wait until june? why wait until june when the district can see it is expired. we have an opportunity today before us to make an incremental change that will, i believe, have a lasting impact on the southeast part of the city. thank you.

commissioner avalos: madam clerk, if we could have a roll call. [calling roll] kim absent. olague, aye. two ayes. so that falls down the middle. commissioner avalos: the motion fails. a motion from commissioner farrell. can i second the motion? i will second the motion. if we could have uppea roll call vote. avaolos aye. cohen aye. farrell aye.

olague aye. item passes. commissioner avalos: motion passes. >> transportation sustainability program proposal index steps information item. >> chair avalos, in commissioners, i am pleased to and ferment -- present the information on the sustainability program along with our partners of the planning department and the mayor's office of economic and workforce elements. in particular chief of staff. as you may recall, authority began this work to try to it explore alternatives to the sequeua implementation measure

many years ago. -- ceqa implementation measurement years ago to try to better align the city kids petition with the city in merman to review policies. today we're pleased to bring you this update in proposal for a programmatic approach called the transportation sustainability program. it will have reflected a truly collaborative effort on the part of four agencies. we're extremely grateful to the planning department staff for their partnership to sfmta staff, including their leafbiad on this effort, who are here today. i would be remiss if i did not appreciate reach a heigachel hyd others. i will turn this presentation

over to alicia, and you should have some slides at your desk. >> good morning, commissioners. felicialicia jonbaptist. this is been a long-plant effort between the four offices. the program itself is innovative in that it relates to the develop a process, which are currently distinct and separate from the environmental review process and the impact fees in such a way to allow for the city to comprehensively fund assets of systematic transportation network improvements that better meet our transit first and other mode tight -- multi-modal transportation components. we have three components. first is the way we conduct

impact analysis under ceqa, six -- specifically by using automobile as a metric. the second is the establishment of a city-wide transportation ability feet. the third is completion of an environment of had report, which would study the cumulative impact of 20 years of projected development activity on the transportation system as whole and the effects of a variety of transportation affect on that growth. this effort was initiated some time ago at request of the transportation authority board at that time. the commissioners recognized the difference between the way we were conducting transportation impact analysis, and the city's goals in terms of supporting transit first and other multi

molecule transgendered petition abilities -- multi-modal transportation abilities. in 2009 the city formed an interagency committee comprised of the agencies mentioned, and at that time we commissioned a study to understand the impact of development on the transportation system as a whole and to establish a nexus between those two. in 2010 transportation staff spent a great deal of time modeling the effects of growth coming in through that effort we were able to a dignified the highest impact, most cost- effective ways of addressing the impact from growth over time. in 2011 we put those pieces together, the nexus study, and the modeling to produce a comprehensive feet and expenditure program, and in 2012

we are completing the drafting of an ordinance that would enable these changes. coming back to the purpose again, all of this is in service of better meeting the transportation-first policies. it is a way of modifying the way that we do business in the city, so that we can better meet the goals. getting into the specifics of each of the components of the program, the change to ceqa methodology will focus on looking at transit delay in transit crowding at the methods result for when we're doing tram -- transportation impact analysis. by focusing on zero thruput at a specific intersection, we can better focus litigation's on the projects, which ultimately serve transit. we find using l.o.ws.l today can

be in feasible and in contradiction to our broader priorities and policies. many of these are long-standing. 40 years ago it was adopted. what we find is as we are solving for speed of automobile throughput, litigation may be to expand roadway capacity, adelaide of traffic coming and that can be in contradiction to our other goals. for example, establishing a safe and secure biked network or insuring pedestrian safety. -- bike network or insuring pedestrian safety. we also find the last project that comes in that tips the scale from accessible to an acceptable in terms of how quickly the automobiles are moving through the area and of being with 15 years of activity. so by establishing this program

we feel we will be able to provide a more equitable approach to achieving the necessary medications to growth as we move forward. so in terms of what this means or what the program would need for development projects, all projects in terms of the review through the environmental review process would be conducting impact studies, because the city will be conducting an e.i.r. to look at the growth and understand what the growth in sales, and an understanding of how the proposed projects will relate to growth. they will have a site-specific design review. we need to make sure when we're looking at a particular building that they are not proposing becker cut of this in contrast to a bus stop. and all projects resulting in the new growth would be required to pay debt transfer

tillage -- transportation sustainability fee. payments of up the allows the city to comprehensively uprising -- payments of the fee would allow the city to comprehensively apply them to growth impact. and as a result, the majority of the transportation projects would not be required to conduct studies under ceqa. in some rare cases where we anticipate disruption to transit service, we may be required to take a deeper look at the transportation impacts. an example of that might be if we were proposing to establish a bike lane on mission street where we have heavy transit service all the way from first to 30th in terms of the corridor-level of tax. we would anticipate being able

to resolve any of these issues through design, and we would hope we would be able to balance our goals between transit and other moves as well. the transportation sustainability fee is propose to replace the impact fee and applied to residential uses. i should mention that because we are conducting an e.i.r. we are 18-24 months away from the program being able to be realized, and in the meantime, we continue to serve as the city's mechanism for addressing impacts to the transportation system, so that the mta will propose an update to the t.d.i.f. in the next couple of months. that will include a modification to the rates to make them consistent with what is the proposed under the t.s.f. it does not currently apply to those, but would not extend to residential at this time. it would make administrative

streamlining changes, which is to make the fee collection and assessment process simpler. going back to t.f.s.f,., we will be able not to charge a reasonable fee to all land use projects, rather than the handful that come in the trigger litigation's under the current metric. commissioner avalos: just a question, currently on the t.d.i.f., when does that fee apply? >> it is assessed when projects come true planning department review, but it is not actually collected until the first certificate of occupancy. commissioner avalos: will it be the same if that is implemented? >> all of this city impact fee couple went into the matter of assessment and collection. two years ago there were changes

to article four in the way we collect fees. we do have in the eastern neighborhoods and market octavia plan areas, we have fees better assessed on development, including residential, and those are community infrastructure impact fees and part of the funds improvement to transportation to offset that offset -- to offset the development in those areas. to the extent -- i should say when those were adopted, it was legislated if there was imposition of a city-wide feet addressing one of those categories whether it is transportation, child care, the list of public services provided, that those would essentially pulled out to the city-wide feet. -- fold down to tthe city-wide fee.

they will double down so we are not double charging. in terms of the expenditure plan, we expect it will generate $630 million over 20 years that will be used to leverage another $820 million in transportation revenue in local, state, and federal. they find a comprehensive, high the-regulated expenditure plan. the reason i am stressing how regulated it is, because we are meeting the requirements under the state mitigation fee act and the nexus study, as well as requiring these improvements serve as ways to use this under the review process, we are very constrained on how the funds can be spent. going into how they are proposed to be spent. 65% of the t.s.f. will fund service expansions. this is the most direct way to

get it away and crowding. all of this has been put together in collaboration with the mta transit effectiveness project. the routes and winds and particular projects that are identified under the expenditure plan are building all of what has been analyzed and understood from the t.e.p. the second are the typical capital projects. they included dedicated rights of way. the third category, regional transit improvements. the program does recognize that part and caltrans -- bart and cal train provide a critical service. this provide some funding to support those services, in the final category is bicycle, pedestrians, and pricing programs tallows us to put

funding to do some programs to provide an enhanced by a network or pedestrian network. this shows the fee rates as proposed today. these were set as a result of two analyses. one was the nexus study. we received it very clear from the direction -- we receive very clear direction from the city attorney. none of this tries to capture 100% of the nexus. we also looked up financial feasibility. we conducted an analysis to ensure that the fees would not result in widespread negative residual we add value. we are very aware of economic conditions, and we understand applying the fee to residential would be a new fee on the residential community and wanted to make sure every said at a

rate that was manageable for those types of projects. the non-residential categories generally speaking are marginally more than what is currently charged under t.d .i.f. when it comes forward for the update, it will mirror the rates, but it would not extend to residential. we're not proposing that an extension until the entire program can be implemented. commissioner avalos: a question on residential, does that apply to only multi-mobile units or single-family homes as well? >> any new development with the square footage exemption. the square footage exemption is currently being proposed at 800 square feet. if you were adding a laundry room, that would be exempted. we're still analyzing exactly what the right number is in

terms of the exemption. we are trying to focus in on what point are we generating a new impact in terms of what is the relationship between net new square footage of the impact? commissioner farrell: curious on the residential feet, have you started to do our reach at all? -- fee, have you started to do outreach at all? >> yes, we have. i think that it is fair to say that people understand and appreciate the policy objectives and how concerned with the immediate financial impact of the residential fee. it is primarily an issue more outside of the eastern neighborhoods and market octavia, because residential fees already applied there, and because it is already been paid, it is not much of a new impact. so i sing the square footage

exemption is important, and the policy discounts that i will go over with you are also important in terms of meeting those concerns. so, on that points, potential policy discounts. as we put to good this program and have received a wide variety of feedback, we have presented this item to the planning commission and the mta board. we've been getting feedback around the desire to encourage particular way it used types or incur ridge particular policies by providing a waiver or reduction of feet under this program -- of fee under this program. this would be < allowable maximum parking. we of zoning districts where there are maximal allowing parking. potential fee waiting for

affordable housing up to 100% and constraint on the policy discount program is that it cannot exceed $40 million in value over 20 years. if we exceed $40 million in value, we put a wrist to apply the expenditure program, and because that is serving as a way for the project to premeditate impact of it is very important we build and implement the program as it has been identified and modeled. so that still leaves us with a substantial amount of funding to apply discounts. we are of course seeking feedback from the commission today on the correct application of discounts come and whether there is something we missed in this so far. whatever direction week it will then be implemented through the draft ordinance, which we're going to introduce in a couple of weeks, maybe three weeks. in terms of implementation of the program -- commissioner olague: i was glad

to ask, a couple of years ago, and i do not know if this is still in play, there was a fee of around area plans. is that still in place? >> it is still in place. it expires, i believe, in the fall of this year. i would have to confirm, but it is expiring but with the police soon. in order for to be reenacted thought it would require positive action by the board of supervisors. in terms of how we have analyzed funding available -- availability and what have we can start to implement the project, we assume it will continue to be in place. if it were not in place, it would obviously mean funding would be available to the program earlier than with the referral program. commissioner olague: ok. commissioner farrell: 100% c wfee waivers, how are you

defining affordable housing? >> at this point we're using the definitions as they have already been identified in other areas. we have fee waivers in the plan impact waivers. i do not remember what it is. maybe it is 85% of ami. i can get the specifics around that, but we are chosen at this point not to reinvent the wheel. we can update the definition according to the dialogue as well. commissioner farrell: the price per square foot, $5.53 for residential. how was that calculated? how did you come up with that? >> that was calculated through the nexus study. the nexus identified what the impact of the transportation system from development, the

cost essentially to providing that necessary transportation service to this new development, and based on the cost calculation we identified if you are building a residential developer of project, this is the cost impact to the system, and then we pulled that a proportionate share out and identified $5.53 per growth per square foot. commissioner farrell: can you forward a copy of the index's steady to my office -- nexus study to my office? >> absolutely. it is being finalized now. we will get it to you when it is finalized. and when to go back to implementation. the program is propose to follow the city standard capital programming process in terms of implementation. we do have a steady comprised of transportation staff, mta staff

and planning staff. the planning department's role is to make sure we're meeting the regulatory requirement in terms of offsetting the impact of growth. projects would be included in the relevant agency's budget and go through the process including review or approval at the board of supervisors. we buiwill be required every fie years to update the study. we will be required to update the environmental review to make sure the developmental assumptions are accurate and look at how the expenditure plans are performing against what the assumptions are in the sure we do not need any modifications or to adjust as necessary as we are going. we also felt like it was important for this program to be in very close collaboration with the prop k program. most of the funding, much of the

funding is levered throughout proper k. -- with prop k. it will be reviewed at the board of supervisors every five years and update the steady and in our mental review. -- environmental review. we begin initial stakeholder are reached laoutreach last year. we are expecting to have an ordinance for introduction in march. it will take about 18 months to complete. once we get through the in our mentenvironmental review, we wil bring it to the board of supervisors for review and potential adoption. likely in the fall of 2013. i am available for questions. commissioner avalos: thank you

so muchl . you probably touched upon this, but if you could reiterate to the extent your plan is opposed, how was that different from how funds are expended in the program is implemented with the courage fee? >> it has historically been used as a source to provide increased transit service to offset the impact of development, and so that has meant his has gone into muni's operating budget. commissioner avalos: that goes in the budget and not specific? it is not programmed in any particular way or head way and we have bike improvements? >> if my understandimy address s been used to fund transit service. to provide operator salaries or whatever else is necessary to

provide necessary trades as service. the t.s.f. would be much more constrained in its use. we would be allocating funding to specific routes the disturbing to offset the impact of growth. there is funding available for preventive maintenance, but that is a transit reliability issue to make sure we of the vehicles available to provide the service, fixing overhead lines, etc. i think it is fair to say the use of the funds under this program would be more transparent than what we experience today. commissioner avalos: that is always good to hear. thank you. is there an expected built up between what the current the -- is there an expected delta between what the current fee is and what we can expect? to go about $ m